.
Christians often condemn human sacrifice and use it as justification for slaughtering competing religious groups and societies.
However, Christians glorify the sacrifice (called "martyrdom") of their namesake and other religious notables. Supposedly the "martyrdom" was often done willingly "to serve god."
How is that different from "pagan" sacrifices to their "gods?"
Human sacrifice
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25089
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
Human sacrifice
Post #1.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
- ttruscott
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 11064
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
- Location: West Coast of Canada
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: Human sacrifice
Post #41Gey there,
Who sacrificed their babies? The parents... Who sacrificed Christ? Ummm, He did...
What did the parents hope to get for sacrificing their children? Recognition and power from their god. What did Christ hope to get from His self sacrifice? Only the redemption of His sinful elect, saving them from the judgment!
Only on the most elementary and simplistic level can these be considered the same or equal....
Peace, Ted
Christ ? Pagan ???Zzyzx wrote: .
Christians often condemn human sacrifice and use it as justification for slaughtering competing religious groups and societies.
However, Christians glorify the sacrifice (called "martyrdom") of their namesake and other religious notables. Supposedly the "martyrdom" was often done willingly "to serve god."
How is that different from "pagan" sacrifices to their "gods?"
Who sacrificed their babies? The parents... Who sacrificed Christ? Ummm, He did...
What did the parents hope to get for sacrificing their children? Recognition and power from their god. What did Christ hope to get from His self sacrifice? Only the redemption of His sinful elect, saving them from the judgment!
Only on the most elementary and simplistic level can these be considered the same or equal....
Peace, Ted
PCE Theology as I see it...
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
- bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #42
Oh, we are talking about YOUR heavenly father. I thought we were talking about Adonai?Divine Insight wrote:If he's my heavenly Father then he should be subject to my personal sensibilities.bluethread wrote: Why should Adonai's plan be subject to you personal sensibilities?.
Why shouldn't he be?
Please, provide a reference where Yeshua called the Jewish people immoral hypocrites or retract that statement. I have shown where Paul thought otherwise. There were indeed some Pharisees that He referred to in those words, but not the Jewish people. Also, you appear to be inflaming animosity by putting words into the mouths of "the Christians". Are you talking about all Christians or just some, and if just some which ones?Fine caretakers they turned out to be. According to Jesus they were immoral hypocrites that Jesus could hardly stop degrading in his public rants.bluethread wrote: The last time I checked, the jews were the caretakers of the commandments of Adonai.
Besides the Christians don't view the Jews as the caretakers of the commandments. Are you kidding me? The Jews are heathens who have refused to accept that Jesus is the Christ and is God's only begotten Son.
The Christians don't recognize the Jews to be the caretakers of the commandments anymore than Jesus recognized the Pharisees to be the caretakers.
That is not the universal position of Christians. If you wish to address particular Christians, then please identify them. If you wish to address the issues, then address them as issues. Your presentation of view points as if they are THE christian positions is highly dishonest. If you believe these to be the position of "the Christians", please support that position with references or retract it.You are grossly mistaken. I didn't say that it's disgusting the people should fear the consequences of their actions. I said that it's disgusting to think that an supreme being would think that the consequence of disobeying him in any possible way should be eternal torture.bluethread wrote: That is an extreme oversimplification. You say here that it is disgusting that people should fear the consequences of their actions. Yet, on another thread you say that not holding people responsible for their actions is tantamount to rape. It would be good if you could be consistent in your arguments.
And this is especially disgusting when one of his demands is that you must believe in him. What if you don't believe? They you should be tortured for eternity?
That is disgusting.
Provide proof of that being the one and only Christian position, or retract your assertion.Of course a person should be held accountable. That's my whole point. But in Christianity that is totally forbidden. You aren't permitted to take responsibility for your sins. The only way to obtain grace is to condone having Jesus take responsibility for your sins.bluethread wrote: You definitely do like to rant and there it is the accusation of rape if one is not held accountable, Should one be held accountable or not?
So you aren't being held accountable for anything.
Provide proof of that or retract it.The only thing that keeps the religion going is the negative social stigma that if you reject Christianity you can't possibly be accepted as a respectable decent person. They can't allow for that.
- Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Post #43
I don't know who "Adonai" is. But if you're claiming that he's not my heavenly father then why should I give a hoot about him?bluethread wrote: Oh, we are talking about YOUR heavenly father. I thought we were talking about Adonai?

Who said anything about the "Jewish People"? That is a meaningless group in terms of being the "caretakers of the Commandments". That would have been the Jewish Priest who were in charge of the temples. The Scribes and Pharisees.bluethread wrote: Please, provide a reference where Yeshua called the Jewish people immoral hypocrites or retract that statement.
And here is my reference.
Matt.23
[13] But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
[14] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
[15] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
[16] Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
[23] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
[25] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
[27] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
[29] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
There is no such thing as "Christianity" in any meaningful sense.bluethread wrote: That is not the universal position of Christians. If you wish to address particular Christians, then please identify them. If you wish to address the issues, then address them as issues. Your presentation of view points as if they are THE christian positions is highly dishonest. If you believe these to be the position of "the Christians", please support that position with references or retract it.
All that exists are a bunch of disagreeing people who claim to speak on behalf of "Christianity".
In fact, this applies to your opinions and views every bit as much as it applies to mine. Don't forget I AM a Christian too!
I may be a Christian who has come to the realization the Christianity has never been anything but a false ancient mythology. But that doesn't mean that I'm not longer a Christian. It simply means that I recognize how absurd Christianity is now.
Therefore my views and opinions on "Christianity" are every bit as valid as yours.
The fact that we even argue over this meaningless religion is truly silly.
Where did I ever say that this is the one and only Christian position?bluethread wrote: Provide proof of that being the one and only Christian position, or retract your assertion.
You are making unrealistic demands. There is no such thing as "the one and only" christian position. In fact, there are many people who have twisted their versions of "Christianity" to such an extreme degree that their versions don't even remotely resemble the Bible.
It's an opinion. You are free to disagree.bluethread wrote:Provide proof of that or retract it.The only thing that keeps the religion going is the negative social stigma that if you reject Christianity you can't possibly be accepted as a respectable decent person. They can't allow for that.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
- bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #44
I never said you should. However, I do not see how you can rail against Christianity, when you are talking about Your heavenly father. Do you or do you not accept "the Christian" deity. If you do, maybe you should spend more time explaining your view of Him. If you do not, how can you call Him YOUR heavenly father?Divine Insight wrote:I don't know who "Adonai" is. But if you're claiming that he's not my heavenly father then why should I give a hoot about him?bluethread wrote: Oh, we are talking about YOUR heavenly father. I thought we were talking about Adonai?
Who said anything about the "Jewish People"? That is a meaningless group in terms of being the "caretakers of the Commandments". That would have been the Jewish Priest who were in charge of the temples. The Scribes and Pharisees.bluethread wrote: Please, provide a reference where Yeshua called the Jewish people immoral hypocrites or retract that statement.
And here is my reference.
Matt.23
[13] But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
[14] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
[15] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
[16] Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
[23] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
[25] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
[27] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
[29] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
I referred to the jewish people and you responded by saying, "Fine caretakers they turned out to be. According to Jesus they were immoral hypocrites that Jesus could hardly stop degrading in his public rants.
Besides the Christians don't view the Jews as the caretakers of the commandments."
Do you deny making that statement?
Also, I have acknowledged that Yeshua criticized those scribes and pharisees. However, how do you conclude that the scribes and pharisees were priests? The scribes made copies of the Scriptures, but so did the king. As far as I know one need not be a priest to make a copy of the Scriptures. Also, I know of no requirement that one be a priest to be a pharisee. In addition, that passage does not speak of errors in copying the Scriptures, but the rabbinic teachings regarding them. The responsibility for the preservation of the Scriptures is the responsibility of every father and mother of Israel. As the Shema says, "((T)hese words which I command you today shall be upon your heart, and you shall teach them diligently to your children, and you shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk be the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up, and you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes, and you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates."
That is an interesting viewpoint. However, if there is no such thing as "Christianity" in any meaningful sense, as you claim, how can you claim that you or I are christians and why would you rail so about something that does not exist. I would suggest that you narrow your scope to a group or philosophy that does exist and indentify them clearly in your posts.There is no such thing as "Christianity" in any meaningful sense.
All that exists are a bunch of disagreeing people who claim to speak on behalf of "Christianity".
In fact, this applies to your opinions and views every bit as much as it applies to mine. Don't forget I AM a Christian too!
I may be a Christian who has come to the realization the Christianity has never been anything but a false ancient mythology. But that doesn't mean that I'm not longer a Christian. It simply means that I recognize how absurd Christianity is now.
Therefore my views and opinions on "Christianity" are every bit as valid as yours.
The fact that we even argue over this meaningless religion is truly silly.
Yet, you refuse to entertain any position other than the strawman position that you have proposed on the basis that it is not what you consider to be the most popular one.Where did I ever say that this is the one and only Christian position?bluethread wrote: Provide proof of that being the one and only Christian position, or retract your assertion.
You are making unrealistic demands. There is no such thing as "the one and only" christian position. In fact, there are many people who have twisted their versions of "Christianity" to such an extreme degree that their versions don't even remotely resemble the Bible.
No, you said that I can not allow for that. I in fact do accept that. I personally do not accept the title of christian, yet I find myself acceptable. Also, if there is no such thing as "Christianity" in any meaningful sense, as you state, there is no way for you to draw that conclusion. First, there is no meaningful Christianity to accept or reject and one can no determine whether one is acceptable or not based on something that has no meaning. So, your argument is nothing more than an attempt to justify the condemnation of others, without providing proof to substantiate that condemnation.It's an opinion. You are free to disagree.bluethread wrote:Provide proof of that or retract it.The only thing that keeps the religion going is the negative social stigma that if you reject Christianity you can't possibly be accepted as a respectable decent person. They can't allow for that.
- Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Post #45
I don't support religious bigotry in any way shape or form.bluethread wrote:I never said you should. However, I do not see how you can rail against Christianity, when you are talking about Your heavenly father. Do you or do you not accept "the Christian" deity. If you do, maybe you should spend more time explaining your view of Him. If you do not, how can you call Him YOUR heavenly father?Divine Insight wrote:I don't know who "Adonai" is. But if you're claiming that he's not my heavenly father then why should I give a hoot about him?bluethread wrote: Oh, we are talking about YOUR heavenly father. I thought we were talking about Adonai?
There is no such thing as a "Christian deity" a "Muslim deity" etc.
This is precisely the kind of religious bigotry that comes from these religions.
If you claim that your "GOD" is the creator of all of humanity, then it is the ONLY deity. It doesn't' belong to anyone.
Moreover, if you claim that this God is my creator then you are the one who is demanding that it is also "my heavenly Father".
Therefore for you to argue that it my not be "my heavenly Father" is futile on your part. Either this God exists or it doesn't. You can't be claiming to have the patent rights on God.
And this whole thing came out of our previous conversation where I said that I would expect "My Heavenly Father" to have a clue about me, my feelings, and my understanding of the world.
You came back with something like "Why should Adonai be subject to your sensitivities?"
Well, duh? If he's "my heavenly Father" then he should be totally aware of, and understanding of, my sensitivities.
What you are basically doing is trying to claim ownership of "my heavenly Father" and demanding to me that you think my heavenly Father is a real jerk.
I don't buy it. If your Adonai is a jerk, then he can't be "my heavenly Father".
It's that simple. You have created an egotistical God that you claim to have the patent rights one. And then you use that egotistical God as an excuse to invalidate any concerns I might have with any "heavenly Father" I might have.
In short Bluethread, I would tell your Adonai to go jump in the lake because he's disgusting and I see no reason to believe that "my heavenly Father" would be as disgusting as your Adonia"
You're not going to dictate to me what God has to be like.
If I'm going to interact with a creator, that interaction will be between me and my creator, and it won't be subject to your approval at all. You have nothing to do with it. If you want to think of "your heavenly Father" as being a big jerk who is insensitive to your concerns, that's your business, and that's between you and him, not me and him.
You are presenting a Zeus-like picture of God. A God who has no "Fatherly sensitivities". I already rejected Zeus once,. I see no reason to need to need to reject him again under the name of Adonai.
No I don't deny making that statement. I reject your unwarranted claim that the"Jewish People" where the caretakers of God's Laws. If they were then they wouldn't have any need for scribes and priests to do that job officially.bluethread wrote: I referred to the jewish people and you responded by saying, "Fine caretakers they turned out to be. According to Jesus they were immoral hypocrites that Jesus could hardly stop degrading in his public rants.
Besides the Christians don't view the Jews as the caretakers of the commandments."
Do you deny making that statement?
Clearly the scribes are the ones who write down all the jots and tittles of the law. And that's even what Jesus referred too, the jots and tittles. The common people were not scribes. Therefore the common Jews were not keeping track of any laws.
So it would be the Jewish scribes who have taken on this job. And therefore these scribes would be representative of their culture (i.e. the Jews).
Secondly it's clear that the Pharisees were the Jewish priests who were in charge of the temples in those days and who had religious authority. In fact, why would Jesus have been arguing with these guys if they were just some sort of secondary Jewish sect that weren't even being recognized by the Jewish people as being the high priests of the Jewish faith?
So I'm simply in disagreement with your views. If you think that scribes and pharisees were just some lowly unimportant group that didn't represent Judaism in the days of Jesus more power to you. But that's clearly not what Jesus thought, because Jesus was treating these guys like they were the top dogs of the temple.
So I just see no value in your suggesting that the "Jewish people" (commoners on the street) could even represent a religious group that were the keepers of God's laws. That's a romantic idealized notion that has no merit.
The Scribes and the Pharisees were the religious authority of the Jewish people in those days. If anything Jesus was just protesting against the orthodox Judaism of his day.
Because, for the most part, I'm not railing against any modern followers of these ancient religions. For the most part my objections are with the ancient religions themselves. What is actually written in the doctrines.bluethread wrote:That is an interesting viewpoint. However, if there is no such thing as "Christianity" in any meaningful sense, as you claim, how can you claim that you or I are christians and why would you rail so about something that does not exist. I would suggest that you narrow your scope to a group or philosophy that does exist and indentify them clearly in your posts.There is no such thing as "Christianity" in any meaningful sense.
All that exists are a bunch of disagreeing people who claim to speak on behalf of "Christianity".
When I do rail against modern day apologetics it's because other people, like yourself, bring those kinds of issues to the table.
Typically when that happens I try to show how those ideas are not even compatible with the original religious doctrines.
So yes, not only do I need to show how the original religious doctrines are absurd, but because people are always twisting those original dogmas into something entirely different I often do find myself in a position of having to show how those modern ideas aren't even compatible with the original religions.
Just like I did above where you are trying to abstractly claim that the "Jewish People" are the caretakers of God's Laws, when clearly it's the scribes and priests who officially tend to the keeping of these dogmas, and NOT the "Jewish People" in general which can be nothing other than a romantic hopeful interpretation being made by people who are indeed trying to get out from under the thumb of what the Bible actually says. The Bible was written by scribes and approved by priests, if you think otherwise then you're necessarily in denial of reality. These religious dogmas were not written by commoners on the street.
That's just a hard core fact of reality.
It is my position that you cannot change the original texts or history in a meaningful way. Just like you tried to do above claiming that the "Jewish People" are the caretakers of the laws of God and not the scribes and priests.bluethread wrote: Provide proof of that being the one and only Christian position, or retract your assertion.Yet, you refuse to entertain any position other than the strawman position that you have proposed on the basis that it is not what you consider to be the most popular one.Where did I ever say that this is the one and only Christian position?
You are making unrealistic demands. There is no such thing as "the one and only" christian position. In fact, there are many people who have twisted their versions of "Christianity" to such an extreme degree that their versions don't even remotely resemble the Bible.
That simply does not fly. There are no religious documents that have been recording and "caretaking" the laws of God save for the Bible itself. So your artificial religious apologies have no basis.
The common Jewish people weren't the caretakers of anything. That's an idealized fantasy that has no counterpart in reality.
You're right, I should have used the term "Christendom" instead. Because there is no such thing as "Christianity". All that exists are a bunch disagreeing and bickering Christendoms. And if you reject a Christendom then the followers of that Christendom will consider that you are an immoral person who had rejected their version of Christ.bluethread wrote:The only thing that keeps the religion going is the negative social stigma that if you reject Christianity you can't possibly be accepted as a respectable decent person. They can't allow for that.
Provide proof of that or retract it.No, you said that I can not allow for that. I in fact do accept that. I personally do not accept the title of christian, yet I find myself acceptable. Also, if there is no such thing as "Christianity" in any meaningful sense, as you state, there is no way for you to draw that conclusion. First, there is no meaningful Christianity to accept or reject and one can no determine whether one is acceptable or not based on something that has no meaning. So, your argument is nothing more than an attempt to justify the condemnation of others, without providing proof to substantiate that condemnation.It's an opinion. You are free to disagree.
~~~~
I will agree that there is a lot of confusion over this precisely because of the existence of so many different Christendoms.
I try to address the absurdities that are actually written in the original texts. And this includes the Old Testament, so it's not even just the claims of Jesus supposedly having been "The Christ".
But often times people are trying to argue back to me some very specific version of Christendom. And that really is a totally different thing.
In our exchange here you are attempting to argue for a Christendom where the common Jewish people are seen as the caretakers of God's Laws.
And my argument against that Christendom view is that the original texts don't support it. The original texts have Jesus arguing the scribes and priests of his day, and those scribes and priests are in charge of the temple and are clearly seen as the religious authoritarians of the Jewish people. Even the Roman Pilate is treating these Jewish scribes and Priests as being representative of the Jewish religion. There were no other officially recognized representatives at that time.
Also, why would Jesus have even bothered with the scribes and pharisees if they were just meaningless yo-yos?
Clearly Jesus saw them as the caretakers of the temple and doctrines too.
So any modern day Christendom that tries to paint a different picture doesn't have a leg to stand on.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 10038
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 1228 times
- Been thanked: 1621 times
Re: Human sacrifice
Post #46Because they believe what the evidence tells them, not what they want to be true. If they believed based on what they wanted to be true, I posit that they would pick a religion to follow.Why don't evolutionists like their tale?
Perhaps one where you can live forever and once again be with the ones you love that have died before you?
People can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
- bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #47
No, this whole thing came out of your comments in post 33.Divine Insight wrote:
I don't support religious bigotry in any way shape or form.
There is no such thing as a "Christian deity" a "Muslim deity" etc.
This is precisely the kind of religious bigotry that comes from these religions.
If you claim that your "GOD" is the creator of all of humanity, then it is the ONLY deity. It doesn't' belong to anyone.
Moreover, if you claim that this God is my creator then you are the one who is demanding that it is also "my heavenly Father".
Therefore for you to argue that it my not be "my heavenly Father" is futile on your part. Either this God exists or it doesn't. You can't be claiming to have the patent rights on God.
And this whole thing came out of our previous conversation where I said that I would expect "My Heavenly Father" to have a clue about me, my feelings, and my understanding of the world.
You came back with something like "Why should Adonai be subject to your sensitivities?"
Well, duh? If he's "my heavenly Father" then he should be totally aware of, and understanding of, my sensitivities.
What you are basically doing is trying to claim ownership of "my heavenly Father" and demanding to me that you think my heavenly Father is a real jerk.
I don't buy it. If your Adonai is a jerk, then he can't be "my heavenly Father".
"At this point we aren't even talking about Jesus. At this point we're talking about Yahweh or Adonai as you call him. The Father God is the one I'm objecting to. At this point Jesus is nothing but an obedient pawn in a truly disgusting and immoral plan by the God of the Bible. "
Is that who we are talking about or is it not? If we are talking about "the God of the Bible", why do you throw out accusations without substantiating them with what the bible says?
I am doing no such thing. You have made general accusations about Christians and Jews and I have merely asked you to substantiate them. I have pointed out, with references, where you have made erroneous statements. Yet, it is you, not I who continues to spout off about what others believe. I have said nothing about "your heavenly Father". I have merely asked for you to define Him. If you have none then drop it and let's discuss what actual people actually believe, with references.It's that simple. You have created an egotistical God that you claim to have the patent rights one. And then you use that egotistical God as an excuse to invalidate any concerns I might have with any "heavenly Father" I might have.
In short Bluethread, I would tell your Adonai to go jump in the lake because he's disgusting and I see no reason to believe that "my heavenly Father" would be as disgusting as your Adonia"
You're not going to dictate to me what God has to be like.
If I'm going to interact with a creator, that interaction will be between me and my creator, and it won't be subject to your approval at all. You have nothing to do with it. If you want to think of "your heavenly Father" as being a big jerk who is insensitive to your concerns, that's your business, and that's between you and him, not me and him.
You are presenting a Zeus-like picture of God. A God who has no "Fatherly sensitivities". I already rejected Zeus once,. I see no reason to need to need to reject him again under the name of Adonai.
Can you show me where this responsibility was given to the scribes and priests? I have shown you where that responsibility was given to every mother and father of Israel.No I don't deny making that statement. I reject your unwarranted claim that the"Jewish People" where the caretakers of God's Laws. If they were then they wouldn't have any need for scribes and priests to do that job officially.bluethread wrote: I referred to the jewish people and you responded by saying, "Fine caretakers they turned out to be. According to Jesus they were immoral hypocrites that Jesus could hardly stop degrading in his public rants.
Besides the Christians don't view the Jews as the caretakers of the commandments."
Do you deny making that statement?
However, He does not mention the scribes when He talks about the jots and tittles. He is talking about HaTorah and I have already shown you who was tasked with it's preservation. It may have been delegated by the people to scribes, but that does not remove the responsibility.Clearly the scribes are the ones who write down all the jots and tittles of the law. And that's even what Jesus referred too, the jots and tittles. The common people were not scribes. Therefore the common Jews were not keeping track of any laws.
No, at best the scribes would be responsible for copying the transcripts. The people are to be responsible for maintaining the culture.So it would be the Jewish scribes who have taken on this job. And therefore these scribes would be representative of their culture (i.e. the Jews).
No, according to your favorite ecclesiastical reference book, Wikipedia, "The Pharisees were at various times a political party, a social movement, and a school of thought". It says nothing about them being priests. Also, it was the Sadducees who ran the Sanhedrin. The Priest attended to the Temple duties. Some of them may have been Pharisees, but others were Sudducees or of another sect. The reason Yeshua argued with them is that they asked Him questions and very good questions. That is why they are recorded.Secondly it's clear that the Pharisees were the Jewish priests who were in charge of the temples in those days and who had religious authority. In fact, why would Jesus have been arguing with these guys if they were just some sort of secondary Jewish sect that weren't even being recognized by the Jewish people as being the high priests of the Jewish faith?
I didn't say they were unimportant. I said that the preservation of HaTorah is the responsibility of all of Adonai's people. Please, show me where Yeshua said that they were the top dogs in the Temple. As I said, if any group was top dog, it was the Sadducees.So I'm simply in disagreement with your views. If you think that scribes and pharisees were just some lowly unimportant group that didn't represent Judaism in the days of Jesus more power to you. But that's clearly not what Jesus thought, because Jesus was treating these guys like they were the top dogs of the temple.
No, the Orthodox of the time would probably been the Essenes. You really need to brush up on your Jewish sects. I suspect you no less about Judaism than you do the Scriptures. It is my opinion that no one who is familiar with Judaism or the Tanakh would be making the statements that you are making.So I just see no value in your suggesting that the "Jewish people" (commoners on the street) could even represent a religious group that were the keepers of God's laws. That's a romantic idealized notion that has no merit.
The Scribes and the Pharisees were the religious authority of the Jewish people in those days. If anything Jesus was just protesting against the orthodox Judaism of his day.
So, where are you getting these "original religious doctrines". Maybe we can look at them, if you can document them.Because, for the most part, I'm not railing against any modern followers of these ancient religions. For the most part my objections are with the ancient religions themselves. What is actually written in the doctrines.bluethread wrote:That is an interesting viewpoint. However, if there is no such thing as "Christianity" in any meaningful sense, as you claim, how can you claim that you or I are christians and why would you rail so about something that does not exist. I would suggest that you narrow your scope to a group or philosophy that does exist and indentify them clearly in your posts.There is no such thing as "Christianity" in any meaningful sense.
All that exists are a bunch of disagreeing people who claim to speak on behalf of "Christianity".
When I do rail against modern day apologetics it's because other people, like yourself, bring those kinds of issues to the table.
Typically when that happens I try to show how those ideas are not even compatible with the original religious doctrines.
Then quit wasting our time and do it. So far, all I have seen are bloviating and accusations. Where are you sources?So yes, not only do I need to show how the original religious doctrines are absurd, but because people are always twisting those original dogmas into something entirely different I often do find myself in a position of having to show how those modern ideas aren't even compatible with the original religions.
According to the rules of the site, facts must be substantiated by sources. Please, support your points with authoritative sources. I have not made an abstract claim. I have pointed to where the people of Adonai are tasked with preserving the Scriptures. I would appreciate it if you could present sources to substantiate you claims.Just like I did above where you are trying to abstractly claim that the "Jewish People" are the caretakers of God's Laws, when clearly it's the scribes and priests who officially tend to the keeping of these dogmas, and NOT the "Jewish People" in general which can be nothing other than a romantic hopeful interpretation being made by people who are indeed trying to get out from under the thumb of what the Bible actually says. The Bible was written by scribes and approved by priests, if you think otherwise then you're necessarily in denial of reality. These religious dogmas were not written by commoners on the street.
That's just a hard core fact of reality.
Where are these original texts or histories you refer to and how have I changed them. It's time to put up or shut up. Provide your evidence that shows that it is not the Jewish people who have preserved HaTorah, but the Pharisees and the Priests.It is my position that you cannot change the original texts or history in a meaningful way. Just like you tried to do above claiming that the "Jewish People" are the caretakers of the laws of God and not the scribes and priests.bluethread wrote: Provide proof of that being the one and only Christian position, or retract your assertion.Yet, you refuse to entertain any position other than the strawman position that you have proposed on the basis that it is not what you consider to be the most popular one.Where did I ever say that this is the one and only Christian position?
You are making unrealistic demands. There is no such thing as "the one and only" christian position. In fact, there are many people who have twisted their versions of "Christianity" to such an extreme degree that their versions don't even remotely resemble the Bible.
That simply does not fly. There are no religious documents that have been recording and "caretaking" the laws of God save for the Bible itself. So your artificial religious apologies have no basis.
The common Jewish people weren't the caretakers of anything. That's an idealized fantasy that has no counterpart in reality.
It' nice to here that I am right about something, but Christianity or Christendom, you are still trading in defamation. Please, speak to an issue and provide support for it. If you must refer to a group of people, be specific. All of this broad brush invectives are getting rather tiresome.You're right, I should have used the term "Christendom" instead. Because there is no such thing as "Christianity". All that exists are a bunch disagreeing and bickering Christendoms. And if you reject a Christendom then the followers of that Christendom will consider that you are an immoral person who had rejected their version of Christ.bluethread wrote:The only thing that keeps the religion going is the negative social stigma that if you reject Christianity you can't possibly be accepted as a respectable decent person. They can't allow for that.
Provide proof of that or retract it.No, you said that I can not allow for that. I in fact do accept that. I personally do not accept the title of christian, yet I find myself acceptable. Also, if there is no such thing as "Christianity" in any meaningful sense, as you state, there is no way for you to draw that conclusion. First, there is no meaningful Christianity to accept or reject and one can no determine whether one is acceptable or not based on something that has no meaning. So, your argument is nothing more than an attempt to justify the condemnation of others, without providing proof to substantiate that condemnation.It's an opinion. You are free to disagree.
~~~~
I will agree that there is a lot of confusion over this precisely because of the existence of so many different Christendoms.
I try to address the absurdities that are actually written in the original texts. And this includes the Old Testament, so it's not even just the claims of Jesus supposedly having been "The Christ".
But often times people are trying to argue back to me some very specific version of Christendom. And that really is a totally different thing.
So, show where it is actually written in the original texts.
I did not say that the scribes and Pharisees were yo-yos. As I said the Sadducees were the ones in charge of the Sanhedrin at that time. Each of these groups did influence rabbinic doctrine, however, there is no evidence that they played fast and loose with the actual Scriptures. Please, provide one passage where Yeshua sees the scribes and Pharisees as the caretakers of the temple? You appear to be conflating a several of different groups to make your points. It really would be nice if you could support your assertions with at least some documentation.In our exchange here you are attempting to argue for a Christendom where the common Jewish people are seen as the caretakers of God's Laws.
And my argument against that Christendom view is that the original texts don't support it. The original texts have Jesus arguing the scribes and priests of his day, and those scribes and priests are in charge of the temple and are clearly seen as the religious authoritarians of the Jewish people. Even the Roman Pilate is treating these Jewish scribes and Priests as being representative of the Jewish religion. There were no other officially recognized representatives at that time.
Also, why would Jesus have even bothered with the scribes and pharisees if they were just meaningless yo-yos?
Clearly Jesus saw them as the caretakers of the temple and doctrines too.
So any modern day Christendom that tries to paint a different picture doesn't have a leg to stand on.
- Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Post #48
No I haven't. You are arguing over Christendom. You are arguing over what modern people have twisted these religions into. I'm not concerned with that.bluethread wrote: You have made general accusations about Christians and Jews and I have merely asked you to substantiate them.
I have made no "accusations" about Christians or Jews.
I was addressing the biblical fables concerning Jesus, etc.
I'm only interested in what is written in those fables. I am not interested at all in what modern Christians or Jews might think of themselves.
The biblical fables have the Jewish Priests of Jesus' day in charge of the Temples. The biblical fables have the Jewish Priests being recognized as the religious authoritarians. They are even recognized by the Roman Pontius Pilate to be the Jewish religious authoritarians.
Jesus also gave them this position by honoring their temples as being the temples of God. Typically if you don't agree that someone is worshiping your God you just renounce their temples as being those of false Gods. Jesus didn't do that. Jesus recognized the Jewish Pharisees as being the caretakers of God's temple.
It's all in the New Testament.
Modern day Jews and Christians can't go back and rewrite those ancient fables to suit their modern day make-believe religions.
Jesus recognized the Jewish Priests of his day to be in charge of God's temple. That's the bottom line.
In fact, I always ask why Jesus didn't just rebuke those Pharisees as having nothing to do with God?
But that's not the biblical story. So we can't change that now. Those Jewish Priests had to be "God's Priest". In fact, that's yet another argument that I make against these ancient fables. Why in the world would an almighty God allow his own priests to become corrupt? It's utterly absurd.
So I am not making any "accusations" toward any modern day Christians or Jews. That's your mistake. And I want no parts of it.
The written Bible and the Gospels are extreme contradictions and absurdities and there's nothing any modern day Christian or Jew can do to change that.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
- bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Post #49
Divine Insight wrote:No I haven't. You are arguing over Christendom. You are arguing over what modern people have twisted these religions into. I'm not concerned with that.bluethread wrote: You have made general accusations about Christians and Jews and I have merely asked you to substantiate them.
I have made no "accusations" about Christians or Jews.
I was addressing the biblical fables concerning Jesus, etc.
I'm only interested in what is written in those fables. I am not interested at all in what modern Christians or Jews might think of themselves.
I'm not going to argue about what I am doing. The members of this site can read what is posted and judge for themselves. That said, if you are only interested in what is written in those "fables", then present them, not your biased spin on them.
Well, there your are correct. The Preists are in charge of the temple and the Sanhedrin was chaired by the Cohen HaGadol. However, they were not permitted to change HaTorah. They were a multi-sectarian court that was to provide interpretation and enforcement. No one sect or trade, ie the Pharisees or the scribes, controlled it. In fact, as I have repeatedly pointed out, at the time of Yeshua the Sadducees had the most power and the Herodians the most sway with the Romans.The biblical fables have the Jewish Priests of Jesus' day in charge of the Temples. The biblical fables have the Jewish Priests being recognized as the religious authoritarians. They are even recognized by the Roman Pontius Pilate to be the Jewish religious authoritarians.
Where does it say that it was the Pharisees Temple? It is my understanding that it is Adonai's Temple or if one is talking about titles, it was Herod's Temple. Last time I checked Herod was not a Pharisee, thus the Herodian sect.Jesus also gave them this position by honoring their temples as being the temples of God. Typically if you don't agree that someone is worshiping your God you just renounce their temples as being those of false Gods. Jesus didn't do that. Jesus recognized the Jewish Pharisees as being the caretakers of God's temple.
It's all in the New Testament.
Neither can you. Please, could you just follow the TOS and present some references. Yes, the Preists were in charge of the Temple, but one did not have to be a priest to be a scribe or Pharisee. You are conflating several concepts here. There is overlap, but they are different things.Modern day Jews and Christians can't go back and rewrite those ancient fables to suit their modern day make-believe religions.
Jesus recognized the Jewish Priests of his day to be in charge of God's temple. That's the bottom line.
The reason he didn't do that is because, as I stated, they were Jews and therefore were, as Jews, responsible for the preservation of the Scriptures.In fact, I always ask why Jesus didn't just rebuke those Pharisees as having nothing to do with God?
The "biblical story" is that the Priest are in charge of the Temple and the copies of HaTorah in the Temple. However, the only things that the priests have in common are their tribe, the particular families, the duties assigned to each of those families and the course that they serve in. A Preist could be of any of many sects. The duties of Scribe are not listed among those of the Priests. In fact, as I have stated before, HaTorah requires the King to write his own copy of HaTorah and read it out loud once every seven years. Also, every set of parents is required to teach HaTorah to their children. So, the preservation of the Scriptures and the duties of the Priests are two different things.But that's not the biblical story. So we can't change that now. Those Jewish Priests had to be "God's Priest". In fact, that's yet another argument that I make against these ancient fables. Why in the world would an almighty God allow his own priests to become corrupt? It's utterly absurd.
The accusations you are making are toward the Christian and Jewish heritage. Your preference for speaking in generalities and only narrowing them when forced does not lend itself very well to productive discussion. It is an effective debate tactic when the listener fails to ask for specifics. However, I have repeatedly asked for specifics and you have either dropped the point or continued with other unsubstantiated statements. Just stating things like "The written Bible and the Gospels are extreme contradictions and absurdities" does not make it so. One is required, at least in this forum, to substantiate ones statements with examples and/or references. I have addressed each of your unsubstantiated points with examples and/or references. So, when you decide to discuss what is actually in the Scriptures, I stand ready to respond.So I am not making any "accusations" toward any modern day Christians or Jews. That's your mistake. And I want no parts of it.
The written Bible and the Gospels are extreme contradictions and absurdities and there's nothing any modern day Christian or Jew can do to change that.
- Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Post #50
I already did. I did not put any biased spin on them. Like Christian fundamentalists I'm quite content with accepting the Bible for what it literally has to say. No spin required.bluethread wrote: That said, if you are only interested in what is written in those "fables", then present them, not your biased spin on them.
Irrelevant. Jesus wasn't supporting any form of orthodox Judaism. On the contrary Jesus himself was in denial of the ancient texts. He clearly rejected the judging of others and the stoning to death of sinners. He also rejected an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and instead preached to turn the other cheek. He actually did that via direct reference.bluethread wrote:Well, there your are correct. The Preists are in charge of the temple and the Sanhedrin was chaired by the Cohen HaGadol. However, they were not permitted to change HaTorah. They were a multi-sectarian court that was to provide interpretation and enforcement. No one sect or trade, ie the Pharisees or the scribes, controlled it. In fact, as I have repeatedly pointed out, at the time of Yeshua the Sadducees had the most power and the Herodians the most sway with the Romans.The biblical fables have the Jewish Priests of Jesus' day in charge of the Temples. The biblical fables have the Jewish Priests being recognized as the religious authoritarians. They are even recognized by the Roman Pontius Pilate to be the Jewish religious authoritarians.
If Jesus was in "harmony" with any Jewish Priests why isn't that documented in the Gospels. Nowhere in the Gospels do we see Jesus being supported by any Jewish Priests from any sect.bluethread wrote:Where does it say that it was the Pharisees Temple? It is my understanding that it is Adonai's Temple or if one is talking about titles, it was Herod's Temple. Last time I checked Herod was not a Pharisee, thus the Herodian sect.Jesus also gave them this position by honoring their temples as being the temples of God. Typically if you don't agree that someone is worshiping your God you just renounce their temples as being those of false Gods. Jesus didn't do that. Jesus recognized the Jewish Pharisees as being the caretakers of God's temple.
It's all in the New Testament.
It seems to me that if you want to twist these ancient fables into that kind of story then the burden of proof to show evidence for that is on your shoulders, not on mine.
I'm going by what the Gospel stories actually say. And the Gospel stories don't have any temple priests coming to the defense of Jesus.
And you haven't shown where any Jewish priests came to the defense of Jesus or supported him in any way. Where were these priests that you speak of when the priests referred to in the gospels were calling for the crucifixion of Jesus?bluethread wrote:Neither can you. Please, could you just follow the TOS and present some references. Yes, the Preists were in charge of the Temple, but one did not have to be a priest to be a scribe or Pharisee. You are conflating several concepts here. There is overlap, but they are different things.Modern day Jews and Christians can't go back and rewrite those ancient fables to suit their modern day make-believe religions.
Jesus recognized the Jewish Priests of his day to be in charge of God's temple. That's the bottom line.
I don't see where you have a biblical page to stand on.
Jesus was a Jew too, but even he didn't preserve the scriptures. He renounced the judging of others and the stoning to death of sinnners. He also renounced an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth directly and instead he preached to turn the other cheek.bluethread wrote:The reason he didn't do that is because, as I stated, they were Jews and therefore were, as Jews, responsible for the preservation of the Scriptures.In fact, I always ask why Jesus didn't just rebuke those Pharisees as having nothing to do with God?
If Jesus was responsible for the preservation of the scriptures he wasn't doing a very good job of it.
Tell Jesus, don't tell me. Jesus is the one who was ranting about the scribes and Pharisees. And there is nowhere in the Gospels where Jesus commends any scribes or Jewish sect for having done anything right.bluethread wrote:The "biblical story" is that the Priest are in charge of the Temple and the copies of HaTorah in the Temple. However, the only things that the priests have in common are their tribe, the particular families, the duties assigned to each of those families and the course that they serve in. A Preist could be of any of many sects. The duties of Scribe are not listed among those of the Priests. In fact, as I have stated before, HaTorah requires the King to write his own copy of HaTorah and read it out loud once every seven years. Also, every set of parents is required to teach HaTorah to their children. So, the preservation of the Scriptures and the duties of the Priests are two different things.But that's not the biblical story. So we can't change that now. Those Jewish Priests had to be "God's Priest". In fact, that's yet another argument that I make against these ancient fables. Why in the world would an almighty God allow his own priests to become corrupt? It's utterly absurd.
I ask you again, why is there no mention of these Jews that you claim were doing things right? Why are they not mentioned in the Gospels. It seems to me if there was a good Jewish sect who were doing right by God that would be worth pointing out by God's only begotten son.
Yet there is nothing in those scriptures to back up your unsupportable claims.
You haven't brought up anything specific to discuss. All you have offered is unsubstantiated personal opinions that there supposedly existed Jewish Priests who were in harmony with the teachings of Jesus and supported his views.bluethread wrote:The accusations you are making are toward the Christian and Jewish heritage. Your penitent for speaking in generalities and only narrowing them when forced does not lend itself very well to productive discussion. It is an effective debate tactic when the listener fails to ask for specifics. However, I have repeatedly asked for specifics and you have either dropped the point or continued with other unsubstantiated statements. Just stating things like "The written Bible and the Gospels are extreme contradictions and absurdities" does not make it so. One is required, at least in this forum, to substantiate ones statements with examples and/or references. I have addressed each of your unsubstantiated points with examples and/or references. So, when you decide to discuss what is actually in the Scriptures, I stand ready to respond.So I am not making any "accusations" toward any modern day Christians or Jews. That's your mistake. And I want no parts of it.
The written Bible and the Gospels are extreme contradictions and absurdities and there's nothing any modern day Christian or Jew can do to change that.
Again, I ask you. SHOW ME where your claims are stated in the scriptures.
I don't see where there were any Jewish authorities or priests taking Jesus' side in any of the Gospels stories. I don't see any Jewish Priests speaking out against the Pharisees other than Jesus himself. I don't see any Jewish Priests defending Jesus when the Pharisees are calling for his crucifixion. I don't see Pontius Pilate consulting with any Jewish priests other than these ones who called for the crucifixion of Jesus. I don't see any Jewish priests in the gospels who were in charge of the Temple who welcomed Jesus with open arms in complete agreement with his views on the religion.
So if you wish to claim otherwise the burden of producing scriptures that show that there were Jewish Priests at the Temple supporting Jesus is on your shoulders.
I can't be expected to prove that negative.
You need to show scriptural evidence for your claims.
So show me where the Scriptures have any Jewish Priests at the Jewish Temples supporting Jesus and supporting his views in any major way.
If you can't do that, then I see no reason to accept your unwarranted and non-scriptural claims.
If the story went the way you'd like for it to have gone it would have been a story where the Jewish Priests themselves were divided. Some calling for the crucifixion of Jesus on charges of blaspheme, and the other group supporting that Jesus has the correct view of the HaTorah.
But that is NOT the gospel story.
So trying to make it the Gospel story now is a bit belated.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]